Success Stories
- California: Client charged with Disorderly Conduct and Obstruction of justice after being beaten by police – CASE DISMISSED
- Indiana: Client charged with felony theft charge for allegedly stealing from a department store – CHARGES DROPPED
- Virginia: Client charged with being an accessory to shoplifting on a US military base – CHARGES DISMISSED
- Florida: 14 year-old client accused of molesting his 4 year-old adopted sister – CHARGES DISMISSED
FIRM ARTICLES
August 14, 2006
Does Victory for the Little Guys Equal Defeat for Justice?
By Vince Imhoff , Attorney at Law and Jay Mykytiuk, Attorney at Law
After voting to convict Martha Stewart on obstruction of justice charges, one juror told reporters that he believed the decision was a victory for the little guys. In denying Stewarts subsequent request for a new trial, the court expressed doubt that the jurors statement revealed an agenda to punish the wealthy. But was the judge too quick to dismiss the possibility that jurors convicted Stewart, a wealthy and successful CEO, at least partially on the basis of her wealth and success? Might it be possible that in the seemingly endless wake of highly publicized corporate scandalsEnron, Worldcom, Adelphijurors have become predisposed to punish wealthy defendants, regardless of actual guilt? To deny the possibility is to deny both human nature and a potential flaw in the American jury system.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused in federal criminal trials a right to a speedy public trial in front of an impartial jury. Contrary to common belief, however, this right does not include a trial by a jury of ones peers. Historically, a defendants jury was composed of persons of his own social and economic class. In pre-Revolution England for example, trials involving titled nobility took place in the House of Lords. But consistent with American ideals of equality, our jury system operates as if we are all peers of one another, regardless of sex, race, religion, and wealth. For wealthy white-collar defendants, the practical effect of this egalitarianism is to place their fates in the hands of 12 jurors with whom they may share little in the way of common experience.
The common presumption is that wealthy defendants, by virtue of their ability to hire the best legal counsel, have an advantage at trial. While that argument may have some merit, wealth can be a double-edged sword. Resentment against wealthy corporate defendantsespecially those accused of crimes that resulted in financial loss to regular peoplemay outweigh any advantage gained by their wealth.
Public sentiment surrounding a Topeka, Kansas case of alleged corporate malfeasance illustrates the bias that wealthy corporate defendants may face in the post-Enron-era, and the uphill battle they face in finding an impartial jury. There, in what some called the Kansas-Enron, David Wittig was accused of looting a local utility. A local citizen expressed her frustration that "people at the top" get away with stripping a company and leaving the "little people" to pay the price. [Chicago Tribune, June 19, 2005] As a Topeka defense attorney aptly pointed out: "The tougher the economic times, the easier it is to dislike these guysYou put these guys making millions in front of a jury and the feeling becomes, Well, obviously they are not doing this legally.
This attitude is not isolated, and it indicates that attorneys of wealthy corporate defendants face an uphill battle at trial before the first piece of evidence is even presented.
Although the court has a duty to assure the accused a fair trial, the challenge falls to defense attorneys to identify potential jurors who are open to hearing the evidence and willing to hold the state to the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases where communities are saturated with pre-trial press coverage, the challenge is far more difficult. By the time Enron corporate executives faced trial, given the extensive news coverage, and investigative reports in magazines, newspapers, and many different television networks, many potential jurors may have already decided the defendants were guilty.
Voir Dire is the process of questioning potential jurors so that the attorneys for the State and the accused can challenge and remove jurors in the selection process. There is a risk, particularly in high profile cases, that jurors who have a particular agenda may shape their answers to avoid challenges for cause. Even if potential jurors assure the judge and attorneys that they are not already biased against wealthy defendants, there is no guarantee of their honesty. There is always a risk that some potential jurors in high-profile cases have sufficient social motives, or even mere desire to seek attention to know what to say to pass muster. Even social pressure in the selection process can stifle potential jurors from admitting their biases to the rest of the venire panelit is a common belief that many people hide secret judgmental beliefs, but few people will publicly admit to harboring such views.
Defusing resentment against the a perception that a client is privileged or believed her wealth placed her above the law both in the media and before thejury is essential to obtaining a fair trial in corporate malfeasance trials. A skilled attorney learns to probe potential jurors for their willingness to set aside considerations of wealth and privilege, and to see the clients humanity. Such attorneys also encourage jurors to picture the charge as something that could happen to them. For example, focusing a jury in a tax-fraud trial on the fact that everyone finds tax forms ambiguous and confusing, can help them relate to questionable deductions they may also have claimed in the past. Strategies such as these are essential to offering a client perceived as wealthy or privileged to receive a fair trial.
Back to Imhoff & Assoicates Criminal Defense Attorneys - Firm Articles